Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Emergent field theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The spacetime metric and the Yang–Mills force fields can be derived from the structure functions of the canonical constraint algebra, sidestepping the uniqueness theorems for gravity and gauge theories without adding new degrees of freedom.

desk verdict A careful SU(2) extension of the emergent modified gravity program, but the claim that the emergent strength tensor is the physical Yang-Mills force is unsupported without an emergent connection. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16163 v1 pith:NAOM2L2W submitted 2025-07-22 gr-qc

Erick I. Duque This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.20.Fy11.15.-q
keywords emergentfieldtheorycanonicalgravityconstraintalgebrastructurefunctionsmodifiednonsingularblackholesYang-Millscovarianceconditions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the uniqueness theorems for general relativity and Yang–Mills theory are not obstacles to modified gravity: they only rule out modifications when the metric and the connection are treated as fundamental fields. The proposal is to let the spacetime metric and the field-strength tensor emerge from the structure functions of the constraint algebra in the canonical (Hamiltonian) formulation — the phase-space functions that appear in the Poisson brackets of the constraints, such as the inverse spatial metric in general relativity — and to impose covariance as a separate condition on the resulting emergent quantities. If this works, there is a family of modified gravity and gauge theories that carry no additional propagating degrees of freedom, avoiding the extra particles and instabilities that other extensions introduce. Explicit symmetry-reduced realizations are claimed to give nonsingular $SU(2)\times U(1)$-charged black holes and a bouncing collapse of scalar matter, with further applications to quasinormal-mode spectra, Hawking evaporation, and a relativistic formulation of MOND.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the constraint algebra of the canonical theory, kept in the Einstein–Yang–Mills form (31) but with the structure functions $\tilde{q}^{ab}$ and $\tilde{F}^i_{0a}$ left undetermined — these are the phase-space functions that multiply gauge parameters in the Poisson brackets of the constraints. In general relativity the bracket $\{\tilde{H}[N], \tilde{H}[\epsilon_0]\} = -H_a[\tilde{q}^{ab}(\epsilon_0 N' - N \epsilon_0')]$ fixes the structure function to be the inverse spatial metric; the paper drops that identification and instead lets the covariance equations (13), (20)–(21) — which demand that constraint-generated gauge transformations equal diffeomorphisms of the emergent metric and strength tensor — determine both the Hamiltonian constraint and the phase-space dependence of the emergent fields. The electric structure functions are defined off shell by (38), the radial gravitational structure function $\tilde{q}^{xx}$ is fixed by the bracket (54c) and given explicitly in (74), and the angular metric component $\tilde{q}_{\vartheta\vartheta}$ is left as a free phenomenological function of the triad because spherical symmetry trivializes the angular vector constraint. Imposing anomaly freedom and covariance on a general second-order ansatz reduces to the equation system (A27)–(A37), whose general solution is the Hamiltonian (71) used in all applications.

What would settle it

The decisive check is to solve the anomaly-freedom and covariance conditions (31)–(36) for a Hamiltonian with no symmetry reduction: if no non-classical solution exists in full four dimensions, the circumvention of the uniqueness theorems holds only in symmetric sectors and the paper's general claim fails. A shorter observational test is the predicted quasinormal s-mode instability below the critical mass $M_c \approx 0.57\sqrt{\Delta}$: stable, purely decaying s-modes from black holes in the corresponding mass range would contradict the theory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a covariant spacetime metric and Yang–Mills force fields need not be fundamental: they can be defined as functions of an underlying canonical phase space, selected by requiring that the constraint algebra be anomaly-free and that the gauge transformations it generates coincide with diffeomorphisms and $SU(n)$ transformations of the emergent fields. Concretely, the inverse of the structure function $\tilde{q}^{ab}$ appearing in the bracket of two Hamiltonian constraints becomes the spatial metric of the emergent line element, and the electric components of the emergent strength tensor are defined by $\tilde{F}^i_{0a} = \epsilon_0^{-1}\{A^i_a, \tilde{H}[\epsilon_0]\}$, with the covariance conditions (32)–(36) then restricting the allowed Hamiltonian constraint. Solving these conditions in spherical symmetry produces the modified Hamiltonian (71) with structure function (74), from which the paper derives nonsingular, $SU(2)\times U(1)$-charged black hole solutions and a nonsingular homogeneous bounce for free scalar matter, while dust collapse within the same framework remains singular. The same machinery yields conserved currents for the emergent charges, Dirac observables for mass and charges, and extensions to Gowdy spacetimes and FLRW cosmologies, so the paper presents emergence as a general route beyond Einstein–Yang–Mills theory rather than a single model.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the chosen identification of the constraint algebra's structure functions with the physical fields — the spatial metric as the inverse of $\tilde{q}^{xx}$ and the forces as the emergent strength-tensor components — an identification that is asserted rather than derived, so if the fundamental canonical variables instead couple directly to matter, the dynamics would be different and likely inconsistent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the metric is no longer a fundamental configuration variable, the canonical uniqueness theorems for general relativity are circumvented, and a family of covariant modified gravity and gauge theories exists with no additional propagating degrees of freedom.
  • Spherically symmetric black holes carrying both $U(1)$ and $SU(2)$ charge are nonsingular for holonomy-type modification functions (90)–(91), with an upper bound on the total charge that guarantees the geometry reaches a minimum radius instead of a singularity.
  • Homogeneous collapse of free scalar matter bounces symmetrically at the minimum-radius surface, whereas dust collapse in the same framework produces a singular geometry.
  • The same modifications shift the quasinormal-mode spectrum, making the s-mode unstable below the critical mass $M_c \approx 0.57\sqrt{\Delta}$, and slow Hawking evaporation at $M_r \approx 0.15\sqrt{\Delta}$, ending the black hole's life in a rapid explosion.
  • The construction extends beyond spherical symmetry to Gowdy spacetimes with a propagating gravitational degree of freedom and to FLRW cosmologies with perturbative inhomogeneities, indicating that emergence is not an artifact of the symmetry reduction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Taken literally, the emergent identification predicts that matter couples to the emergent metric and forces rather than to the fundamental phase-space variables; experiments that could distinguish these two couplings, such as binary-pulsar or galactic-rotation tests of the MOND-type $c_f$ modifications the paper mentions, would probe the framework's core assumption.
  • The paper explicitly leaves open whether a full four-dimensional, symmetry-free Hamiltonian satisfies the same anomaly-freedom and covariance conditions; if none exists, the circumvention of the uniqueness theorems applies only to symmetric sectors, and the general claim is correspondingly weaker.
  • Since $\tilde{q}_{\vartheta\vartheta}$ is chosen phenomenologically rather than derived from the algebra, whether the claimed singularity resolution survives for all allowed choices of this free function deserves a dedicated check.
  • If quantization starts from the fundamental phase space, the emergent fields become composite operators whose spectra need not align with the fundamental ones and that may fail to commute; this suggests a concrete, testable quantum signature that differs from quantizing the metric directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a canonical framework, called emergent field theory, in which the spacetime metric and the Yang-Mills strength tensor are not fundamental phase-space variables but are derived from the structure functions of the constraint algebra after modifying the Hamiltonian constraint while keeping the vector and Gauss constraints classical. The central claim is that this construction circumvents classical uniqueness theorems and yields modified gravity and gauge theories without additional propagating degrees of freedom. The paper presents the general covariance conditions, derives an anomaly-free spherically symmetric Hamiltonian for Einstein-Maxwell-SU(2)-Yang-Mills coupled to scalar matter and fluids (Eq. (71) and Appendix A), and gives applications: nonsingular SU(2)xU(1)-charged black holes, bouncing scalar collapse, modified quasinormal-mode spectra, and modified Hawking evaporation. It explicitly acknowledges that dust collapse and minimal scalar coupling remain singular and that the full four-dimensional extension is open.

Significance. If the construction is sound, it is a conceptually interesting route to modified gravity that avoids extra degrees of freedom, and the explicit anomaly-free Hamiltonian (71) is a nontrivial technical result. The paper is commendably specific about the covariance conditions and about which modification functions remain free. The symmetry-reduced derivation is systematic, and the paper honestly reports cases where singularity resolution fails. However, the advertised physical interpretation as a post-Einstein-Yang-Mills theory is not yet supported for the non-Abelian sector, and the claimed circumvention of uniqueness theorems is not demonstrated in the full four-dimensional setting in which those theorems hold. The many undetermined functions also make the nonsingularity results examples rather than robust predictions, although the paper does state several explicit conditions under which nonsingularity holds.

major comments (3)
  1. [III, Eqs. (28)-(29), (31)-(38)] The central physical interpretation of the emergent strength tensor as a Yang-Mills force is not self-consistent for SU(n). The Wong system consists of the Lorentz-force equation (28) and the charge-transport equation (29); in standard Yang-Mills theory both use the same connection A_mu, whose curvature is F^i_mu_nu. Here the emergent strength tensor is defined by the bracket (38) and the covariance conditions, and in the explicit black-hole solution its electric components (93)-(94) differ from the classical field strengths while the magnetic components remain classical (45). The paper never constructs an emergent connection A~ whose curvature equals F~, nor proves that charged matter couples only to F~. If the charge in (29) is parallel-transported with the fundamental connection A while the force in (28) is computed from F~, the two Wong equations are not jointly covariant and the test-particle dynamics is not that of a Yang-Mills force. The U(1) sector is exempt because (29) is trivial, but the SU(2) sector is not; this affects the central claim of a post-Einstein-Yang-Mills theory.
  2. [V (final paragraph); cf. I and Abstract] The paper's broad claims that uniqueness theorems for general relativity and Yang-Mills theories can be circumvented go beyond what is proven. The explicit construction and anomaly-free Hamiltonian (71) are derived in spherical symmetry, and the covariance conditions in Section III are only conditions, not a solution, of the full four-dimensional problem. The manuscript itself states that "it remains to be seen whether modifications are possible in four-dimensional systems without symmetries." Since the Hojman-Kuchar-Teitelboim uniqueness theorem is a statement about the full 3+1 constraint algebra, the symmetry-reduced examples do not by themselves demonstrate circumvention in the setting of that theorem. The claims in the abstract and introduction should be restricted to symmetry-reduced emergent field theory, or a full four-dimensional example should be provided.
  3. [IV.A.3-V, Eqs. (71)-(73), (85)-(92)] The physical conclusions advertised as robust -- nonsingular charged black holes, bouncing scalar collapse, modified quasinormal-mode and Hawking spectra -- depend on largely unrestricted free functions: lambda(E^x), cf(E^x), q(E^x), ch(E^x), chi, alpha0, alpha2, alpha3, alpha4, and the matter potential and pressure functions. The anomaly-freedom and covariance conditions fix the form of the constraint only up to these functions, as summarized after Eq. (73). The paper itself shows that dust collapse is singular and that minimal scalar coupling is singular, so singularity resolution is not a generic property of the framework. To support the word "robust" in the abstract, the author needs either a selection principle that restricts the free functions or a common structural condition (for example, boundedness of the emergent metric components) satisfied by all nonsingular choices. As written, the nonsingular results are existence proofs for specific choices rather than robust predictions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV.A, after Eq. (44)] The same symbol P^x is used for both the U(1) momentum and the SU(2) radial momentum; Eqs. (55)-(56) are then indistinguishable, and the statement after Eq. (71) that alpha0 and alpha2 are functions of "E^x, P^x, P^x, and B^x" is unreadable. Distinct notation should be introduced.
  2. [IV.A.3, Eqs. (72) and (82)] The term "ch3(E^x)'" appears without definition; this should presumably be "ch(E^x)'" or a separate function ch3 should be defined.
  3. [IV.B.2, Eq. (105)] Equation numbers are duplicated: (105) first labels the dust equation for (ln q~xx)• and then labels the scalar-field lapse expression. The equations should be renumbered.
  4. [Abstract] The word "cosmologial" in the abstract is a typo and should read "cosmological."
  5. [Section I] The sentence "general covariance is cannot incorporated in the canonical formulation" is ungrammatical and should read "cannot be incorporated."

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The emergent-force identification is definitional and the singularity predictions depend on freely chosen modification functions; the constraint-algebra derivation itself is self-consistent.

  1. self definitional [Section III, after Eq. (38); Section IV.B.1 Eqs. (93)-(94)]
    "The emergent fields, rather than the direct phase-space variables, must be considered as the physical manifestations of gravity and Yang–Mills forces because their consistent covariant transformations allow us to identify them as spacetime tensor fields and can be consistently used in the Wong equation (28) which dictates the dynamics of test particles."

    The paper inserts F~ into the Wong force law (28) and thereby defines the physical Yang–Mills force as F~; the predicted coupling of test particles to F~ is then true by construction. The nontrivial consistency requirement, that F~ be the curvature of the connection A_μ used in the charge-transport equation (29), is never established. In the explicit black-hole solution the electric components (93)–(94) differ from the classical F(A) while the magnetic components are still the classical expressions (45), so F~ is not the curvature of the same connection. The claim that the emergent strength tensor is the physical force therefore reduces to a stipulation, not a derivation.

  2. other [Section IV.B.1, Eqs. (90)–(92) and Section IV.B.2]
    "With these two modifications, λ and αU(1)×SU(2), the black hole is nonsingular if the holonomy parameters satisfy"

    The singularity resolution is not a generic output of the covariance/anomaly analysis; it is obtained only after choosing the ansatz λ=√Δ/x and trigonometric modifications (90)–(91) with adjustable holonomy parameters. Inequality (92) is a condition on those chosen constants; choosing parameters to satisfy it is equivalent to assuming a nonsingular geometry. The paper itself notes the allowed modifications are “diverse and far from unique,” and the same construction with dust remains singular (Section IV.B.2). Thus the “prediction” of nonsingular black holes is conditional on the input ansatz rather than forced by the constraints.

full rationale

The core anomaly-freedom calculation (Section IV.A, Appendix A) is a genuine derivation: the modified Hamiltonian is constrained by solving the bracket equations and covariance conditions, and the resulting structure function (74) is not set equal to the classical qxx by assumption. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors; the Hojman–Kuchař–Teitelboim theorem is external and the circumvention consists in explicitly weakening its metric-fundamentality premise. The circularity burden is concentrated in two places. First, the statement that the emergent strength tensor is the Yang–Mills force probed by test particles is a stipulation: F~ is substituted into the Wong force law (28), while the charge-transport equation (29) still uses the fundamental connection A; the paper never constructs an emergent connection whose curvature equals F~, and in the explicit solution the magnetic components are classical while the electric components are modified, so F~ is not the curvature of the A in (29). Second, the advertised singularity resolution and modified QNM/Hawking spectra are obtained only after choosing undetermined functions (λ, αU(1), αSU(2), etc.); the paper admits these are “diverse and far from unique.” These are conditional model predictions rather than forced consequences. This warrants a moderate score of 4 but not higher, because the constraint-algebra check and the construction of modified Hamiltonians with the same phase space are self-contained and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on a large set of undetermined free functions and on the assumption that the emergent structure functions are the physical fields. The derivation of the constraint algebra is explicit, but the physical predictions depend on chosen modification functions and on symmetry-reduced assumptions.

free parameters (10)
  • lambda(E_x) (holonomy modification function) = undetermined; example: sqrt(Delta/x)
    Appears in the Hamiltonian (71) and structure function (74); controls singularity resolution and QNM/Hawking effects.
  • Delta (constant in lambda = sqrt(Delta/x)) = undetermined; expected order of Planck area if quantum origin
    Sets the scale of all singularity-resolution and evaporation effects.
  • chi(E_x, P_x, ...) = undetermined; classical limit 1
    Overall factor in the modified Hamiltonian and structure function.
  • cf(E_x), q(E_x) = undetermined; classical limits cf=1, q=0
    Modify kinetic and potential parts; also appear in the structure function q~xx.
  • alpha0, alpha2, alpha3, alpha4 (functions of E_x, P_x, ...) = undetermined; classical limits specified
    Encode charge and curvature modifications; determine the nonsingularity bound.
  • alpha_U(1), alpha_SU(2) charge functions = example: sin^2(a P_x)/a^2, etc.
    Chosen by hand to produce bounded charge actions; appear in the line element and nonsingularity condition.
  • a, b_P, b_B (holonomy parameters) = undetermined
    Appear in the charge functions (90)-(91); condition (92) must hold for nonsingularity.
  • q~_theta_theta(E_x) (angular structure function) = undetermined; chosen phenomenologically
    Cannot be derived from the symmetry-reduced algebra; must be chosen by hand.
  • Scalar and fluid potential functions (V, V_q, V^q, P_0, P_q) = undetermined functions
    Define matter couplings; some choices lead to singular collapse.
  • ch(E_x) = undetermined; 0 in vacuum
    Coupling function in the scalar matter Hamiltonian.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math The canonical decomposition of GR and Yang-Mills is valid; constraints are first-class and generate gauge and time evolution (Section II).
    Standard Hamiltonian formulation of field theories.
  • domain assumption The constraint algebra (12) is universal for any matter coupling (Section II, citing [24]).
    Assumes the hypersurface-deformation algebra with Yang-Mills structure functions persists.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the Hamiltonian constraint is modified; vector and Gauss constraints retain the classical form (Section III).
    This restriction defines the class of theories considered; other modifications are logically possible.
  • domain assumption Covariance requires canonical gauge transformations to match spacetime diffeomorphisms on shell (Eqs. 13, 20, 21).
    Standard covariance requirement in canonical gravity.
  • ad hoc to paper The modified Hamiltonian is a local function of phase-space variables and their derivatives up to second order (Section IV A 2).
    Locality and derivative-order assumption; the paper notes this could be relaxed.
  • ad hoc to paper Emergent structure functions are the physical fields probed by test particles (Section III).
    Identification of emergent fields with the metric and strength tensor; not derived from a deeper principle.
  • domain assumption Spherically symmetric symmetry reduction preserves the essential structure of the full theory (Section IV).
    All explicit constructions are symmetry-reduced; full four-dimensional viability is open.
invented entities (2)
  • Emergent spacetime metric g~_mu_nu (line element 41)
    purpose: Provides the geometry of spacetime from phase-space structure functions rather than from a fundamental metric.
    The metric is defined through the structure function q~xx; no parameter-free falsifiable prediction is given because the free functions are undetermined.
  • Emergent Yang-Mills strength tensor F~_i_mu_nu
    purpose: Provides the force fields felt by test particles from structure functions.
    Its components are derived from covariance conditions but depend on free modification functions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent field theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NAOM2L2W

@misc{pith2026250716163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent field theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NAOM2L2W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16163}
}
read the original abstract

The uniqueness theorems for general relativity and Yang-Mills theories can be circumvented by dropping the ubiquitous, yet often implicit, assumption that physical fields, such as the spacetime metric, are fundamental. The novel concept of emergent fields makes it possible to construct modified theories of gravity and forces where the spacetime metric and strength tensor fields emerge from a covariance analysis in the canonical formulation with nontrivial relations to the fundamental phase space and no additional degrees of freedom are required. This is an example of a post-Einstein-Yang-Mills theory that implies new physics. In particular, explicit realizations of the theory in symmetry-reduced systems have shown robust resolutions of the singularities that plague the classical theories in regions of extreme spacetime curvature, including nonsingular (SU(2)xU(1)-charged) black holes with a cosmologial constant and collapsing solutions, as well as Gowdy and FLRW cosmologies. Further applications include modifications in the spectrum of quasinormal modes and in the evaporation process of black holes, as well as relativistic formulations of long-range gravitational effects capable of modeling MOND as an alternative solution to the dark matter problem. New results here include an extension of the spherically symmetric system that couples SU(2) gauge fields and the generalization of previous dynamical, homogeneous solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16163 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Two consecutive Lorentz-normal deformations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Phase-space structure In the spherically symmetric theory, the spacetime metric takes the general form ds2 = −N 2dt2 + ˜qxx(dx + N xdt)2 + ˜qϑϑdΩ2 . (41) The classical spatial metric components can be written in terms of the classical radial and angular densitized triads E x and E φ, respectively, qxx = (E φ)2/E x and qϑϑ = E x, but ˜qxx and ˜qϑϑ may acqu...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Covariance conditions In spherical symmetry, the vector constraint reduces to Hx = E φK ′ φ − Kx(E x)′ + Pϕϕ′ + PX X ′ + PT T ′ +P1W ′ 1 + P2W ′ 2 + ̸ gWx(P2W1 − P1W2) , (49) which is independent of electromagnetic variables be- cause its magnetic field vanishes. The U(1) Gauss con- straint reduces to GU(1) = −(P x)′ , (50) and the SU(2) Gauss constraint ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Hamiltonian constraint and structure functions The implementation of anomaly freedom and the co- variance conditions, as well as the existence of the sym- metry generators —corresponding to the mass and charge observables characteristic of the spherically symmetric system with no degrees of freedom—was performed in

    work page

  4. [4]

    Modified constraint We choose our initial ansatz for the modified con- straint contribution of the SU(2) Yang–Mills field based on the SU(2)-invariant functions (A14) and (A15) and the derivative order of the classical constraint: ˜H SU(2) = χ √ E x 2 " E φ (E x)2 a0 + (P1)2 + (P2)2 E φ a1 + 1 + θ2 E φ (̸ Bφ)2 a3 + (P1)2 + (P2)2 (E φ)2 b3 (A25) + 2θ E φ (...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Nonsingular SU(2) ×U(1)-charged black hole Isolating the two most interesting modification func- tions λ(E x) and α0(E x, P x), by setting all the rest to their classical values, except for a constant χ = χ0, and α0 = 1 − ΛE x − (αU(1) + αSU(2))/E x, with arbitrary func- tions αU(1)(P x) and αSU(2)(P x, ̸ Bx), results in expres- sions for the emergent lin...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Therefore, a good model for collapsing mat- ter in the interior region is that of homogeneous spher- ically symmetric systems

    Homogenous collapse The interior region of the modified black hole is ho- mogeneous. Therefore, a good model for collapsing mat- ter in the interior region is that of homogeneous spher- ically symmetric systems. This case was studied in [16] for the free scalar field with zero charge and constant λ. Here, we generalize those results to arbitrary λ(x) for ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, in Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research, edited by L. Witten (Wiley, New York, 1962), reprinted in [8]

    work page 1962

  8. [8]

    These Lie derivatives must be used in the right-hand- side of the covariance conditions (20) and (21)

    Covariance conditions The nontrivial spacetime diffeomorphisms generated by ξµ∂µ = ξt∂t + ξx∂x for a spherically symmetric SU(2) Yang–Mills 1-form W i µ and its strength tensor field W i µν respectively reduce to LξW 3 t = ϵ0N x − N ϵx W 3 0x + δSU(2) ξµW 3µ A3 t , (A1) LξW 3 x = ϵ0W 3 0x + δSU(2) ξν W 3ν W 3 x , LξW 1 ϑ = ϵ0W 1 0ϑ + ϵxW 1 xϑ + δSU(2) ξν ...

    work page

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Classical constraints Using the rescaled variables of Section IV A 2, the only non-vanishing component of the SU(2) Gauss constraint in spherical symmetry is given by GSU(2)[Wt] = − Z dxWt [(P x)′ + ̸ g (P2W1 − P1W2)] , (A10) and the SU(2) contribution to the vector constraint...

  2. [10]

    Constraint algebra The nontrivial SU(2)-invariant phase-space functions f —in the sense that {f, GSU(2)[B]} = 0 —in spherical symmetry with no derivatives are given by P x , ̸ Bx , (P1)2 + (P2)2 , ̸ B+ = ̸ g (P1W1 + P2W2) , ̸ B− = ̸ g (P1W2 − P2W1) , (A14) and with first-order...

  3. [11]

    P. A. M. Dirac, The theory of gravitation in Hamiltonian form, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 246, 333–343 (1958)

    1958

  4. [12]

    Lovelock, J

    D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys. 12, 498–501 (1971)

    1971

  5. [13]

    Lovelock, J

    D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys. 13, 874–876 (1972)

    1972

  6. [14]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume II: Modern Applications , (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume II: Modern Applications , (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  7. [15]

    starting with the most general constraint ansatz in- volving up to second-order derivatives of the phase-space variables for the Einstein–Maxwell system, and previ- ously for the vacuum system in [14]. Here, we gener- alize the results to include SU(2)-Yang–Mills degrees of fr...

  8. [16]

    Ostrogradsky, M´ emoire sur les ´ equations diff´ erentielles relatives an probl´ eme des isop´ erim´ etres, (Imp

    M. Ostrogradsky, M´ emoire sur les ´ equations diff´ erentielles relatives an probl´ eme des isop´ erim´ etres, (Imp. de l’Acad´ emie, 1848)

  9. [17]

    and Lema ˆ ıtre–Tolman–Bondi collapse models [32] generically also develop singular emergent geometries. Furthermore, other couplings of scalar matter are pos- sible [16]; one such alternative realization is the min- imal coupling, given by the Hamiltonian contribution ˜H ϕ = ...

  10. [18]

    R. P. Woodard, The theorem of ostrogradsky , (2015), arXiv:1506.02210

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    R. P. Woodard, Avoiding dark energy with 1/r modifica- tions of gravity , In The invisible universe: Dark matter and dark energy , 403–433 (Springer, 2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 1997 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    S. A. Hojman, K. Kuchaˇ r, and C. Teitelboim, Ann. Phys. (New York) 96, 88 (1976)

    1976

  14. [22]

    K. V. Kuchaˇ r, J. Math. Phys.15, 708 (1974)

    1974

  15. [23]

    Katz, Les crochets de Poisson des contraintes du champ gravitationne, C

    J. Katz, Les crochets de Poisson des contraintes du champ gravitationne, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris 254 1386–7 (1962)

    1962

  16. [24]

    Bojowald, and E

    M. Bojowald, and E. I. Duque, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 095008 (2024), arXiv:2404.06375. 19

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bojowald, and E

    M. Bojowald, and E. I. Duque, Phys. Rev. D108, 084066, (2023), arXiv:2310.06798

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    E. I. Duque, Phys. Rev. D 110, 125006 (2024), arXiv:2407.14954

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bojowald and E

    M. Bojowald and E. I. Duque, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084006, (2024) arxiv:2311.10693

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    E. I. Duque, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044014 (2024), arXiv:2311.08616

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı, D

    A. Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı, D. Brizuela, and R. Vera, Phys. Lett. B 829, 137075 (2022), arXiv:2112.12110

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    I. H. Belfaqih, M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, and E. I. Duque, Black holes in effective loop quantum gravity: Covariant holonomy modifications, arXiv:2407.12087

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bojowald and E

    M. Bojowald and E. I. Duque, Phys. Rev. D,110, 124001, (2024), arXiv:2407.13583

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bojowald, M

    M. Bojowald, M. D ´ ıaz, E. I. Duque, Perturbative emer- gent modified gravity on cosmological backgrounds: Kine- matics, arXiv:2507.14358

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bojowald, M

    M. Bojowald, M. D ´ ıaz, E. I. Duque,Singularities in loop quantum cosmology, arXiv:2507.08116

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bojowald, M

    M. Bojowald, M. D ´ ıaz, E. I. Duque, Perturbative emer- gent modified gravity on cosmological backgrounds: Dy- namics, in preparation

  27. [35]

    Deruelle, Y

    N. Deruelle, Y. Sendouda, and A. Youssef, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084032 (2009), arXiv:0906.4983

    2009 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. M. Pons, D. C. Salisbury, and L. C. Shepley, Phys. Rev. D 55, 658 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9612037

    1997 arXiv

  29. [37]

    D. C. Salisbury, and K. Sundermeyer, Phys. Rev. D 27, 740 (1983)

    1983

  30. [38]

    Bojowald, S

    M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, and D. H. Yeom, Phys. Rev. D 98, 046015 (2018), arXiv:1803.01119

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 79, 276 (1974)

    1974

  32. [40]

    A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20, 194 (1974)

    1974

  33. [41]

    Bojowald, and H

    M. Bojowald, and H. Kastrup, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 3009 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9907042

    2000 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bojowald, Class

    M. Bojowald, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 3733 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407017

    2004 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bojowald, E

    M. Bojowald, E. I. Duque, and D. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 064002, (2025), arXiv:2412.18054

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bojowald, E

    M. Bojowald, E. I. Duque, and S. Shankaranarayanan, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 024051, (2025) arXiv:2410.17501

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    I. H. Belfaqih, M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, and E. I. Duque, Hawking evaporation and the fate of black holes in loop quantum gravity, arXiv:2504.11998

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Bojowald, and E

    M. Bojowald, and E. I. Duque, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138279 (2023), arXiv:2310.19894

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.